USCA4 Appeal: 23-4660 Doc: 27 Filed: 05/23/2024 Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4660

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RODRICUS DENARD CARPENTER, Defendant - Appellant.

No. 23-4661

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RODRICUS DENARD CARPENTER, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:23-cr-00012-LCB-1; 1:12-cr-00040- LCB-1)

Submitted: May 21, 2024 Decided: May 23, 2024 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4660 Doc: 27 Filed: 05/23/2024 Pg: 2 of 6

Before WYNN and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

No. 23-4660, dismissed in part and affirmed in part; No. 23-4661, affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Charles L. White, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4660 Doc: 27 Filed: 05/23/2024 Pg: 3 of 6

PER CURIAM: In these consolidated cases, Rodricus Denard Carpenter appeals his conviction and the 188-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty to distributing 40 grams or more of fentanyl, and aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 18 U.S.C. § 2 (“criminal case”), as well as the revocation of Carpenter’s supervised release and the resulting 24-month revocation sentence (“revocation case”). Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), conceding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal because, in relevant part (1) Carpenter knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal in the criminal case; and (2) the sentence imposed in the revocation case is not plainly unreasonable. The Government moves to dismiss Appeal No. 23-4660 based on the appellate waiver in Carpenter’s plea agreement but declined to file a response brief in the appeals. Despite having received notice of his right to do so, Carpenter has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. After conducting our review in accordance with Anders, we dismiss in part and affirm in part in Appeal No. 23-4660, and affirm in Appeal No. 23-4661.

We first conclude that Carpenter has waived his right to appeal in the criminal case.

As we have explained, a defendant may, in a valid plea agreement, waive the right to appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742. See United States v. Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Cir. 1990).

This court reviews the validity of an appellate waiver de novo and will enforce the waiver if it is valid and the issue appealed is within the scope thereof. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005).

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4660 Doc: 27 Filed: 05/23/2024 Pg: 4 of 6

An appeal waiver is valid if the defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to the waiver. Id. at 169. “To determine whether a defendant knowingly and voluntarily agreed to waive his appellate rights, we look to the totality of the circumstances, including the defendant’s experience, conduct, educational background and knowledge of his plea agreement and its terms.” United States v. Carter, 87 F.4th 217, 224 (4th Cir. 2023).

“Generally, . . . if a district court questions a defendant regarding the waiver of appellate rights during the [Fed. R. Crim. P.] 11 colloquy and the record indicates that the defendant understood the full significance of the waiver, the waiver is valid.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Based on the totality of circumstances in this case, we conclude that Carpenter knowingly and voluntarily entered his guilty plea and understood the waiver. We therefore grant the Government’s motion and dismiss Appeal No. 23-4660 in part as to all issues within the scope of the appellate waiver. And, in accordance with our obligations under Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for any potentially meritorious issues that do not fall within the scope of the appellate waiver and have found none. We therefore affirm in part the district court’s judgment in the criminal case.

Regarding the revocation case, we have held that “[a] district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). A revocation sentence that is both within the applicable statutory maximum and not “plainly unreasonable” will be affirmed on appeal.

United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). In determining whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, this court USCA4 Appeal: 23-4660 Doc: 27 Filed: 05/23/2024 Pg: 5 of 6

assesses it for reasonableness, utilizing “the procedural and substantive considerations” employed in evaluating an original criminal sentence. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006).

A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court has considered both the policy statements contained in Chapter Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors it is permitted to consider in the revocation context. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439-40. The district court must also provide an explanation for the chosen sentence, although this explanation “need not be as detailed or specific” as is required for an original sentence. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court states a proper basis for concluding the defendant should receive the sentence imposed.

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. Only if we find a sentence unreasonable must we decide whether it is “plainly” so. Id. at 439. Applying these principles here, we conclude that the revocation sentence is not plainly unreasonable.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the records in these cases and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in Appeal No. 23-4660 as to any issues falling with the scope of Carpenter’s appellate waiver and affirm the remainder of the criminal judgment. As to Appeal No. 23- 4661, we affirm the district court’s judgment revoking Carpenter’s supervised release and imposing a 24-month sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Carpenter, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.

If Carpenter requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would USCA4 Appeal: 23-4660 Doc: 27 Filed: 05/23/2024 Pg: 6 of 6

be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Carpenter.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

No. 23-4660, DISMISSED IN PART & AFFIRMED IN PART; No. 23-4661, AFFIRMED